Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world.”

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

In a letter sent yesterday to University of Delaware President Patrick Harker, FIRE pointed out the stark contradiction between the residence life education program and the values of a free society. FIRE’s letter to President Harker also underscored the University of Delaware’s legal obligation to abide by the First Amendment. FIRE reminded Harker of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case decided during World War II that remains the law of the land. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

“The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students’ basic rights, but for students themselves,” Lukianoff said. “The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE would like to thank the Delaware Association of Scholars (DAS) for its invaluable assistance in this case. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Delaware and elsewhere can be seen by visiting www.thefire.org.

It's just unbelievable. There are no words. Fun fact? Freshman are required to live in the dorms unless they have family nearby.

What's really fun is that Democrats like John Edwards want everyone to go to college. And why not? Then everyone will be brainwashed into being perfect little zombie-fied moonbats.

Please feel free to contact the University of Delaware and demand that they stop this. We live in a free society, and to be completely frank, this is bullshit. NO ONE should have to put up with that. NO ONE.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

I stumbled across it and watched it over and over and over again, trying to figure out how many "improvements" they had to make on this girl. First it was the hair and the make-up, and then the Photoshop. For what it's worth, I didn't see anything worth changing after her hair and make-up had been done. But no... they gave her bigger lips and eyes, elongated her neck, slimmed down her shoulders and cheeks... it's just unbelievable.

I understand these companies are only out to sell their product, but I applaud Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty. Do these executives ever once stop and think about what they're doing to women? About the message they're sending? I think I'm a decent looking woman -- not the hottest thing around, but I think I'm all right. However, I could never, ever measure up to that final picture, for example, or any model. It's because I'm real, and (most of the time) I'm glad I am. I don't know that I want to be a size 2 so badly that I'd starve myself, and I like having curves. But at the same time, it is hard to ignore that twinge when you are at the grocery store and see some girl with a tiny waist, perfect boobs, "bed me" eyes, and a full mouth on the cover of Cosmopolitan, accompanied by a headline telling you how to get that look. When you're as inundated as we are today by these ideals of what beauty should be, it takes a lot of confidence and willpower to not doubt yourself. Not all women possess that confidence and willpower. So they work out seven days a week. They won't leave the house without taking an hour and a half to make sure their hair is perfect and their make-up disguises what they really look like (the make-up thing in particular annoys me more than anything else). Some might not eat. Some might throw up what they eat. And all in the name of unattainable beauty that some marketing executive for a clothing line or make-up company thinks we should strive for.

Um, no thanks.

I don't know what there is we can do to change this, but something has to change. It isn't healthy, and it isn't right. I understand wanting to have your product sold by a beautiful woman, but it's being taken way too far. Take the model above. Did she need that much work done? Obviously, she doesn't look anything like the finished product, but she didn't look bad to begin with, either. She looked like the girl next door. And even after doing her hair and make-up, it wasn't good enough. To be considered beautiful, you have to drop reality and look more like a frozen mannequin at a department store, complete with slender body and a frozen, shiny face.

This is me. This is what I look like. That photo was taken by a friend of mine in front of some trees behind her apartment building. She wanted to play around with her camera and needed a "model", so I took about twenty minutes to throw on some make-up and we did a ten minute "photo shoot". But these people would have a laundry list of complaints, I'm sure. Not tall enough (5'2"), not skinny enough (size 8), not made-up enough (I still look like myself), not tan enough (I'm not interested in frying myself to skin cancer)... I'm sure they could have a field day with me on Photoshop. Make my eyes bigger, my nose smaller, my lips fuller... who knows. The thing is, most women will have more in common with me than any model on any billboard, and is there something wrong with that? We aren't all 5'10" and 115 pounds with a C cup rack and perfect hair. I'm a real women, and I don't have a problem with that. But sometimes, I think these executives want me to. I think they want women to loathe their bodies and the way they look. Then, they'll be even more eager to buy loads of make-up, spend money on laser hair removal and plastic surgery, spend every free moment at the gym, and drop cash on weight-loss programs. But it just isn't healthy. It's just not right.

Seriously... at what point does enough become enough? Will there be a day when we can just appreciate people for who they are and what they actually look like, rather than an ideallized version of it? No one's perfect. But these companies are telling women that we need to be, and that needs to stop.

Friday, October 26, 2007

John Rich of country duo Big & Rich can, shockingly enough, think for himself, it seems. Rather than toe the Hollywood line about politics and culture, Rich has come out in support of Fred Thompson and against gay marriage in a new interview with The Tennessean.

John Rich left no doubt on where he stands after Wednesday's appearance on The Steve Gill Radio Show, which now features him as a regular commentator.

John is an avid supportive of Fred Thompson's presidential bid because he's a conservative who agrees with Fred's voting record.

"Big & Rich music is so out of the box and so wild and unrestrained," John tells me. "They probably just make assumptions that you're that way with everything. One reason why we are able to be so untethered in country music is because we have a really strong base and strong beliefs and core values."

The pro-lifer is against gay marriage.

"I think if you legalize that, you've got to legalize some other things that are pretty unsavory," he says. "You can call me a radical, but how can you tell an aunt that she can't marry her nephew if they are really in love and sharing the bills? How can you tell them they can't get married, but something else that's unnatural can happen?"

He spoke to his partner, Big Kenny, before coming out publicly for Fred.

"It's actually a risky thing for an entertainer to get into politics, but I'd rather take a chance on alienating some fans than sit by idly and watch Hillary Clinton go trotting into the White House."

My earlier comments on same-sex marriage don’t reflect my full views on the broader issues regarding tolerance and the treatment of gays and lesbians in our society. I apologize for that and wish to state clearly my views. I oppose same-sex marriage because my father and minister brought me up to believe that marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. However, I also believe that intolerance, bigotry and hatred are wrong. People should be judged based on their merits, not on their sexual orientation. We are all children of God and should be valued and respected.

Hearing a celebrity think and speak for themselves, rather than keep to the mandatory liberal talking points, is so refreshing. It's even more surprising to hear about the rare conservative celebrities out there.

I encourage all of you to do your best to show your support for Big & Rich.

Yemen has set free one of the al-Qaida masterminds of the USS Cole bombing in 2000 that killed 17 American sailors, a senior security official said Thursday.

Jamal al-Badawi, who is wanted by the FBI, was convicted in 2004 of plotting, preparing and helping carry out the USS Cole bombing and received a death sentence that was commuted to 15 years in prison.

He and 22 others, mostly al-Qaida fighters, escaped from prison in 2004. But al-Badawi was granted his freedom after turning himself in 15 days ago and pledging loyalty to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The official said police were told by the government to "stop all previous orders concerning measures adopted against al-Badawi."

Witnesses told The Associated Press that al-Badawi was receiving well-wishers at his home in the al-Buraika district in Aden.

Why we didn't tell Yemen that we want him, and they better hand him over or they're gonna pay big time is beyond me.

After all, didn't President Bush say that anyone who gives aid and comfort to terrorists is an enemy of ours in the War on Terror? Or perhaps that was just an empty threat.

Regardless, the fact that this murderer and Al Qaeda terrorist is free again is troubling, to say the very least.

He's a hate-filled asshat who smears our troops on a semi-regular basis and is dripping with nothing but smug condescension and vile hatred for the men and women who give him the freedom to be a complete and total asshat. He's published in over 140 publications, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, received first place in both the 1995 and 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards for Cartoons, and was awarded the 1998 Deadline Club Award by the Society of Professional Journalists. The Left just loves this guy.

Back in July, I wrote about his then-latest smear of our troops. He published a new cartoon calling our troops suicide bombers, saying our troops are possessed with religious fervor, poor education, immaturity, blind obedience, etc. This is also the same Ted Rall who called Pat Tillman an idiot, a sap, and a "cog in low-rent occupation army that shot more innocent civilians than terrorists to prop up puppet leaders and exploit gas and oil resources".

There was a time when service in U.S. military was honorable and professionally rewarding. But because of politicians who use the military to pump up corporate profits instead of defending us, that was a long time ago. Americans with personal integrity should boycott the volunteer military and discourage everyone they care about to do the same. "They come from parts of the country where jobs are hard to find," an acquaintance condescendingly excuses the enlistees. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I'd rather sleep under a bridge, eating trash out of a Dumpster, than murder human beings for Halliburton.

If we're attacked by a foreign power, as we last were in 1941 at Pearl Harbor, Americans will line up to volunteer. World War II, won six decades ago by a storied generation of draftees and volunteers, was fought to defend American freedom. But we haven't fought an honorable war since.

You know, why do I have the feeling that Ted Rall was the bespectacled kid with a runny nose who everyone hated in high school, and was beaten up by the football team over and over again?

Anyways, Ted Rall has decided that he hasn't smeared and insulted the people ensuring his freedoms quite enough yet, and has come out with yet another vile cartoon, characterizing our troops as idiots and saying that only idiots die at war.

Here's my question. According to this cartoon, natural selection is kicking in and that's why our troops are dying.

But if that's the case, then why is Ted Rall still with us? If natural selection had really kicked in, he would've been among the first to go.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

I just received an e-mail from a Media Relations representative for Bank of America concerning the account for donations benefiting the Johnson family:

I am with Bank of America media relations and need to tell you there is an error on your blog http://cassyfiano.blogspot.com/2007/10/please-help-johnson-family.html about how the public can make contributions to the Johnson Family through Bank of America.

The correct name of the account is the "Ashley and Logan Johnson Memorial Fund." People who wish to contribute can go into any Bank of America banking center in the United States and make a contribution. They will also need to tell the bank associate that the account is domiciled in Texas.

Our hearts and prayers are with the Johnson Family during this unimaginably difficult time, and we thank you taking immediate action to correct this information on your site.

I've had a few e-mails to tell me there are problems with donating, and now we know why. I encourage everyone reading this to please make a donation, no matter how small.

Also, a big, big thank you to Bank of America for helping out this family.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Yesterday, President Bush posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest award one can receive in the military, to Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy (something the mainstream media didn't find important enough to cover). In this video, you'll find the ceremony, and President Bush entails the bravery and selflessness that earned Lt. Murphy the award.

May God bless Lt. Murphy and his family.

Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.Know the line has held, your job is done. Rest easy, sleep well.Others have taken up where you fell, The line has held.Peace, peace, and farewell.

They'd had a perfect evening. The wine and conversation had flowed easily and when Clare Connell gazed across the restaurant table at her new beau, a successful merchant banker, she couldn't help wondering if he might be the one.

"It was then that he dropped his calamitous bombshell," recalls Clare, 30, an ambitious and highly successful City management consultant who earns over £200,000 a year. "He said: 'I don't know why women bother having careers. My mother never worked.' And just like that, I realised that he was sadly like many other Alpha males I meet. He didn't want a partner who was his equal, he wanted a Beta female - someone who would pander to his ego and look up to him. In short, like many successful men, he didn't want a confident business person like himself, but a woman who will stay at home and wash his socks."

Needless to say, it sounded the death knell for that relationship.

Clare is not alone. According to Nicola Cairncross, a speaker on women's finance and author of the book The Money Gym: The Ultimate Wealth Workout, the more successful a woman becomes, the harder she will find it is to meet the right man; and, she warns, the more likely it is that any relationship will founder.

Ms. Cairncross, who runs seminars aimed at helping successful women cope with their wealth, says: "Sadly, the clever, attractive Alpha woman who has set her sights on an Alpha man is likely to be very disappointed. Alpha men come home at night after a day of competing in the boardroom and the last thing they want is to compete with an assertive wife as well. He wants an easy life, someone to stroke his fevered brow, and that means marrying a feminine, girly Beta woman who doesn't have the masculine competitive traits of her Alpha sister."

Hearing women whine and complain that men don't want successful women gets on my last nerve, especially the women like this Clare Connell. Guess what, Clare? People have bad luck in relationships sometimes. It will probably take you a long time before you find your Prince Charming -- I had to kiss nothing but toads for five + years before I found mine.

Here's the advice I have to these Alpha females. If you keep going on dates with attractive, successful, smart men who keep rejecting you, didja ever stop and think that, hm, maybe the problem is you?

No, no, no, no, in today's politically correct, more enlightened world, if a man turns down a successful woman, it must be because he's intimidated by her. It couldn't possibly be because maybe she came on too strong, or seemed too needy. It couldn't possibly be because maybe they just wanted different things out of life, or that maybe he just didn't feel the spark. Nope, it's gotta be because he's intimidated by her success.

Because, you know, all Alpha men just want a woman who will lovingly do their laundry, cook and clean for them, pop out kids, and smile the entire time without ever offering a negative opinion. At least, in these women's eyes, that's how Alpha men are.

Take the situation offered. Alpha Male gives an opinion that is just shocking -- shocking, I say, shocking! His mom never worked and he thinks it's the best for a woman. Rather than showing some backbone and having a lively little debate with Alpha Male, or maybe giving him the chance to explain why he feels that way, Little Miss Alpha Female neatly puts him into the same box that she puts every other Alpha Male into without a second thought.

He thinks its best for women to stay home? He must hate all women! He can't take it when a woman is successful! And all of this can be ascertained because Alpha Male has an opinion that Alpha Female disagrees with.

Gee, maybe I missed something, but I thought it was ok for people to disagree occasionally.

And what's interesting is that these Alpha women don't want Alpha men, either. They want the Beta male as they simultaneously castrate the Alpha male for wanting a Beta female. And really, what is so horribly wrong with that? OK, so this guy would like his wife to stay home. To modern-day feminists, that's blasphemy. But really -- what is so wrong with a man preferring for his wife to stay at home? We all have ideals for what we want our families to be. Unless some guy has advocated putting a doggie collar around your neck that will electrocute you if you leave the house, I don't think most men have any intention of forcing their wives to stay home. I think most men are perfectly happy to let their wives do whatever they choose when it comes to working or otherwise.

I also have never (yes, never) met a single man who wanted a girlfriend or wife who would just smile and nod and do whatever he wanted. I have never encountered one of these men. I've never dated one, I've never been friends with one. From what I can tell, most men prefer a strong woman. Most men want a woman who isn't an idiot, who has opinions, and who is his equal, whether she stays at home or works every day. What feminists cannot seem to wrap their minds around is that a stay-at-home mom isn't a mindless drone. Maybe this guy that Clare Connell wrote off so easily grew up seeing his parents have a fantastic marriage, where his mother complemented his father. But no, he thinks a woman should stay at home, so he's an evil, woman-hating jerk who is intimidated by a successful woman.

Another woman in this article whines that a boyfriend left her when her business took off, claiming that he said he resented the amount of time she was spending on her business. I'll presume that as her business took off, it took up more and more of her time, giving her less and less time with her boyfriend. Could it be possible that maybe this guy simply wanted a girlfriend who would make him a priority, and not throw him on the back burner whenever work called? Gee, what a jerk.

The same woman said that several men have told her she is "scary" and "intimidating". I usually find that people who come across as "scary" and "intimidating" seem that way because of how they present themselves. Maybe she oughtta take a look at her attitude and mannerisms so she doesn't come across quite as "scary" and "intimidating".

Of course, plenty of these enlightened women would probably castrate me for all of this. We shouldn't have to change who we are, they'll say. Your boyfriend probably keeps you down and hates women, they'll say. You aren't a strong woman, and that's why you're letting them off the hook, they'll say.

No, no, and no. A big part of making relationships work is compromise, and if these women are completely unwilling to compromise any part of themselves, then no wonder men run away screaming. Only one woman in the article suggested that compromising could be the key to making a relationship work for these women. Compromising is not the same thing as pandering to a man's ego, which is how these "strong", "enlightened" women undoubtedly see it. And, for the record, my boyfriend does not keep me down or hate women, and he loves my career. He's my biggest fan. (So there!)

My advice to these Alpha Females who can't keep a man? Get off your high horse. Take your ego down a few notches. Cut Alpha Males some slack and actually give them a chance. Maybe let them see your softer side, rather than the confident, assertive side (it's all about balance).

But hey, I'm just a chick who writes blogs for a living. I'm not a guy, and I can't really say I know what a man wants. But I think the aforementioned advice will help these ladies out a lot.

For all you Alpha Males out there -- how would you advise these women to finally be able to keep a man?

John Austin Johnson survived five IED attacks, but the sixth one left him with brain damage. When he came home, he expected to see his wife and three children -- only to find out two of his children had died in a car accident and the third was on life support.

Army Spc. John Austin Johnson seemed to have a gift for evading tragedy.

During two years in Iraq, the soldier from Fort Bliss, in West Texas, survived five improvised explosive device blasts and several grenade attacks.

“A lot of people go through one IED and don’t survive,” said Army Sgt. 1st Class Eugene Schmidt.

But Spc. Johnson’s luck began to turn with the last IED blast, which left him with a traumatic brain injury. Back in Texas for care at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, he was eagerly awaiting a visit by his wife and three children last weekend.

But the children never arrived.

“I went up to his room and told him there was a problem,” said Sgt. Schmidt, an Army medic who has grown close to the family over the last week. “I told him there was an accident and two of his children were deceased.

“He said, ‘Two of my children are dead?’ And we started crying.”

Driving across the plains from El Paso, Spc. Johnson's wife, Lisa, had encountered a ferocious wind gust in her Chevrolet Trailblazer, Sgt. Schmidt said. "She steered and overcorrected, and the car rolled over four times."

The youngest children, 2-year-old Logan and 5-year-old Ashley, died at the scene. Nine-year-old Tyler suffered massive head injuries and was flown to Children's Medical Center Dallas, where he remained on life support Saturday.

Mrs. Johnson suffered bruises but was released from a hospital to join her husband in Dallas. They have been staying at the Ronald McDonald House to be near Tyler.

Though the family was too grief-stricken to talk publicly, Sgt. Schmidt said he was impressed by how they are handling the situation.

"I think they're very strong, and they have a strong religious faith, and that's what pulling them through it," he said.

You can donate to help cover family expenses at any Bank of America -- just ask to make a deposit to the John A. and Monalisa Johnson Fund. If you have accounts at Bank of America, you can make a quick deposit while you do your regular banking. It's completely hassle-free. And if you don't bank at Bank of America, then all the same -- it'll take five minutes, at most, to stop in and deposit twenty dollars to help this family.

Just take a minute and put yourselves in this family's position. I know firsthand how expensive medical bills can be. If you can help this family at all, please do. Even five dollars can make a difference.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Mel Martinez, the public face of the Republican National Committee as its general chairman, announced Friday he was stepping down from his post after serving only 10 months.

"I believe that our future as a party and nation is bright and I have every intention of continuing to fight for our president, our party and our candidates," the Florida senator said in a statement.

His resignation came months earlier than anticipated. Martinez wasn't expected to step down until a Republican presidential nominee was selected, and the earliest that could occur is February.

The RNC said Martinez' job would not be filled.

Martinez said he was relinquishing the job to spend more time focusing on his constituents and because the RNC had achieved the objective he set when he assumed the job in January.

"It was my goal as general chairman to lead the party as it established the structure and raised the resources necessary to support our presidential candidate and ensure Republican victories next November. I believe we have accomplished those goals," Martinez said.

To Costa Rican "artist" Guillermo "Habacuc" Vargas it is. He found a dog on the street, tied him up, and gave explicit instructions for the dog to not be fed. Obviously, the dog died.

Habacuc’s exhibition included a legend spelled out in dog food reading “You are what you read,” photos and an incense burner that burned an ounce of marijauna and 175 “rock’ of crack cocaine. In the background, according to reports, the Sandista national anthem played backwards.

According to the artist, his “art” was a tribute to Natividad Canda, a Nicaraguan burglar killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers guarding property he had entered at night. The incident caused friction between the two countries. Habacuc told the daily La Nacion, “I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”

“The same thing happened with poor Natividad Canda. The people sympathized with him only after he was dead,” the artist added.

Animal abuse? No, of course not! This is art, see? We're just a bunch of idiots who aren't on his artistic plane. We just don't understand, and we're not expected to. We're supposed to be offended, while Vargas gets embraced in modern art circles. He's been chosen to represent Costa Rica in the “Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008".

Once upon a time, wasn't art supposed to be beautiful, inspirational, and yes, sometimes provocative? I don't think much in modern art fits those descriptions. Disgusting, offensive crap is a much better description.

In case you haven't heard, the bidding for the Reid & Co. letter smearing Rush Limbaugh has just ended at a whopping $2,100,100.00. Over two million dollars -- way to go, Rush!!

The media, of course, has been pretty much silent on this.

All of this money (and Rush is also going to match that sum) will be going to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Fund.. For those unfamiliar, here's a little rundown from the MC-LEF's website:

The recent war in Iraq has certainly illuminated America’s commitment to freedom. We are reminded that freedom is not free. The price is great. No one knows that better than the left-behind sons and daughters of America’s fallen heroes.

Through the continuous support of our donors, we have distributed aid with a value of more than $29,000,000.00 to eligible children. This assistance was primarily rendered to children of Marines or Federal law enforcement personnel who were killed on duty or died under extraordinary circumstances while serving our country at home or abroad. These funds enable us to provide these children with scholarships for their higher education. When a child of a United States Marine is afflicted with a physical or mental disability and requires special medical equipment or tutoring, our Foundation may grant financial assistance to that family if their personal insurance does not cover the complete cost of treatment for this child.

In addition to the regular program, our Foundation decided to support all American Forces and also Coalition Forces in the invasion of Iraq and taking of Baghdad from 3 March 2003 to 16 July 2003. In the past, the Foundation also included in our program the children who lost a parent from all agencies killed in the murderous attack on the Pentagon. We also decided to go back and give our bonds to children who lost a parent on the USS Cole; the children of the Air Force personnel killed at Khobar Towers; and, with great honor, the twelve children who lost their parent on the space shuttle Columbia disaster.

This assistance has had a positive, life-changing effect on many, many children. We are thankful for the commitment and support of our many members and volunteers. Because of their dedication, no administrative costs of any type are charged to our Foundation. One hundred percent of the donations received is used to fund programs for the children we serve.

Harry Reid has been droning about how he's so proud to be part of this effort with Rush, even though they don't agree on much. Rush has asked Reid and the other senators to match that number, as well -- no response yet. Most of these senators are extremely wealthy, but I won't hold my breath for them to put their money where their mouth is.

In any case, over $4 million is unbelievable. Congratulations, Rush Limbaugh, and thanks to whoever it was that was able to make that unbelievable bid!!

While I kind of think that the paparazzi are asking for this when they get that close to a moving vehicle, couldn't Britney have maybe stopped the car? Gotten out to see if he was OK? Not committed another hit-and-run? It ain't exactly her first time!

Curiously, she was also leaving a medical office sporting disgustingly larger lips.

Well, everyone's heard of the Pete Stark Rant, but if you haven't, here it is:

Here is, of course, the money quote:

"You don't have money to fund the war on children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement." -- Democrat Pete Stark on the House Floor.

A lot of people are acting shocked and apalled by what he said, and while I certainly think it was offensive, the first thing that came to my mind when I heard him speak was not shock.

No, as soon as he started speaking, I thought, "Wait a second... no way... is he... is he drunk?!"

Seriously. Maybe he and Ted Kennedy had a wild night or something, but the way he was speaking... what he was saying... he had to have been wasted. He's practically slurring his speech! The entire time he was talking I was waiting for him to lose his balance and fall down. It may not be the most intelligent observation out there, but honest to God, it was my very first thought.

And personally, I agree with Neal Boortz -- don't ask the scumbag to apologize. Condemn what he said all you want, call him a flaming asshole if you're so inclined. But demanding an apology is futile. If he does then apologize, you know it doesn't mean anything because he isn't genuinely sorry. It's because he wants to save his ass. So rip him to shreds all you want, but demanding an apology is about as worthless as asking Ted Kennedy not to have another drink.

James Walton, owner of Able Walton Machine & Welding in the 2000 block of Chalk Hill Road in West Dallas, was alerted to the intruder when his motion sensor system activated about 9 a.m. Sunday, police said.

Mr. Walton, who also lives at his business, went downstairs with a shotgun and fired at a man who had broken in. The intruder was later identified by police as Jimmy Gannon of Ferris.

Police said Mr. Walton also noticed another man outside Sunday. Mr. Walton shot and wounded that man. He escaped, but a witness eventually led police to him. The man, whom police did not immediately identify, was questioned by officers Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Gannon, 37, was taken to Methodist Dallas Medical Center, where he died.

Police said Mr. Walton is allowed to protect his property. No charges were filed against him Sunday, though the case will be referred to a grand jury, police said.

"He's got a right to defend his property. What gives a stranger the right to go in and vandalize or burglarize his business?" said Dallas police Sgt. Gene Reyes. "He's within every legal right to do this."

Mr. Walton could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Dallas police Sgt. Andrew Harvey said he doesn't believe anything was stolen from Mr. Walton's business on Sunday.

On Sept. 22, Mr. Walton shot and killed a man he saw climbing through a pried-open window of his business, police said. The intruder was later identified as Raul Laureles. That incident also was referred to a grand jury.

Aguilar, who has since been suspended (and was just named one of the National Association for Hispanic Journalists' Broadcast Journalists of the Year), apparently thought this would be a good opportunity to bully a senior citizen.

What Ms. Aguilar did not find significant was that Mr. Walton called the police 42 times to report break-ins, and also that his place of business is also his home. She also didn't point out that she is strongly anti-gun. Apparently, this "professional" is unable to keep her bias out of her journalism.

I have to say, I think that what she did to this man is despicable. I don't own a gun (yet), but you can bet your ass that if someone broke into my house and I was armed, I would shoot them in a heartbeat. My goal would not necessarily be to kill, but if I did, too bad -- they shouldn't have broken in. I wouldn't sit there to wait and find out whether or not an intruder caused me harm. How is one supposed to determine whether or not a criminal is going to be dangerous to you? If you've called the police and they haven't been arriving in a timely fashion, then what other option do you have? To wait and see if this criminal breaking into your home is going to cause you physical harm or not? To just cooperate and pray he doesn't hurt you? Or should you defend yourself, with deadly force if necessary? Sgt. Reyes said it himself -- he has a right to defend himself and his property, which he did, and I applaud him for that.

And while Ms. Aguilar has every right to do a piece on the story if she so chooses, it is more than a little unprofessional to go into the story with a pre-set bias, and look to humiliate the man, and ultimately make him cry. She didn't report the facts; she tried to make the law-abiding citizen the bad guy and the criminal the good guy (typical for a liberal). Why she hasn't been fired already is beyond me.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Obesity does not result simply from over-eating and a lack of exercise, but is a consequence of modern life, a British government think-tank said on Wednesday.

Weight gain does not result from people's actions -- such as over-indulgence or laziness -- alone, and is a far more passive phenomenon than is often assumed, according to Foresight.

It found that the technological revolution of the 20th century has led to weight gain becoming unavoidable for the majority of the population, because our bodies and biological make-up are out of step with our surroundings.

"Stocking up on food was key to survival in prehistoric times, but now with energy dense, cheap foods, labor-saving devices, motorized transport and sedentary work, obesity is rapidly becoming a consequence of modern life," said Sir David King, the British government's chief scientific adviser and head of the Foresight program.

The British Department of Health-sponsored project is the result of a two-year-long study into the causes of obesity involving almost 250 experts and scientists.

They predicted that the so-called obesity "epidemic" would take at least 30 years to reverse.

So let's break this down. Before the technological revolution, people were doing more physical labor, i.e., unintentional exercize, and were eating better foods because fast food was unavailable. Now, we're sitting around behind desks at work, driving everywhere, and eating cheap foods.

I can picture it now. This British think tank is sitting around, and someone mutters this to themselves, and then jumps up and shouts, "EUREKA! It isn't lack of exercize and eating too much crap, it's modern life!"

But isn't what this so-called "think tank" discovering what we already know? People used to have more physical exertion on a regular basis and ate better quality food. Now, we engorge ourselves with McDonald's and sit on our asses all day long. To counteract that, most people work out and try to eat healthier.

But oh no, says this "think tank". Encouraging people to exercize more and eat better is looking at it the entirely wrong way. We have to change our attitudes -- we must stop looking at obesity as something that comes about from over-eating and/or laziness!

So what is the answer? Why, changing society, of course!

"Foresight has, for the first time, drawn together complex evidence to show that we must fight the notion that the current obesity epidemic arises from individual over-indulgence or laziness alone," he said.

"Personal responsibility is important, but our study shows the problem is much more complicated.

"It is a wake-up call for the nation, showing that only change across many elements of our society will help us tackle obesity."

The researchers said there was no single "magic bullet" solution; even a new appetite-suppressing drug would not be the answer, because the problem is systemic.

Tackling obesity, like tackling climate change, requires a range of changes in society, from increasing everyday activity through the design of the built environment and transport systems to shifting the drivers of the food chain and consumer purchasing patterns to favor healthier options.

Right, right, this is just like "climate change". We must change society to keep people from getting fat! Who cares about personal responsibility? It isn't important to shut your piehole and get on a treadmill for a while. What's important is that changes in society are made so that we can all continue to be lazy and shove whatever we want into our mouths. Heaven forbid that we put any effort into it.

I'm extremely glad that I live in the United States when I see things like this. If I lived in Britain, I'd be furious that my taxpayer dollars funded this crock of shit.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

What type of decorations might you usually see around Halloween? Skeletons, spiderwebs, gravestones, dismembered hands... things like this are common, as is a decoration that is now being called a "hate crime".

Kelly Lynch says she is a witch, and therefore, her neighbor's Halloween decoration of a hanging witch is a hate crime -- just like burning crosses or hanging nooses in a black family's yard would be.

Driving down East Street in Chicopee it's hard not to notice a witch hanging from a noose. To many, it's an innocent Halloween decoration, but for Kelly Lynch it's offensive.

"We don't harm anyone, we worship god, we are not evil, and we don't cast spells, " says Lynch.

Lynch is a witch. She has been studying witchcraft since she was a child, and says it's her way of life.

"We are just like Christians, Muslims, we have our own religion, " adds Lynch.

That's why when she saw the life-like witch hanging in someones front yard she went straight to the home owner's door.

"He told me to lighten up, it was a Halloween decoration, I know it's his constitutional right, but I want it down. To make that your only decoration...it's kind of odd, " stresses Lynch.

But the owner will do no such thing. His neighbor says he has every intention of keeping it up.

"There's no way it's coming down. I think it's funny people are getting so upset, it's only a decoration, " says neighbor, Kevin Belder.

But Lynch says it's no laughing matter. She says it's a hate crime against her religion

"Look at Louisiana, it's the same thing, what if a black family burned crosses, or nooses it would be the same thing, " says Lynch.

And if the owner still doesn't take the Witch down from its noose by Halloween, Lynch plans to protest outside his home.

She says it's not only a hate crime against her religion, but offensive to the entire community.

"It's depicting death. I wouldn't destroy a cross or bash a religion or race,so I don't expect that to happen to me, " adds Lynch.

I have to say, Lynch made lots of fun statements in this, so let's take them on one by one, shall we?

In my opinion, this right here is the money quote:

I know it's his constitutional right, but I want it down.

Doesn't that just sum up the "I'm offended, therefore I am" crowd perfectly? This woman doesn't care that it's a Halloween decoration up temporarily, not something he has hanging all year round. She doesn't care that it is, indeed, his right to put up whatever he wants. She doesn't care that it's on his own private property. The only thing she cares about is that she is offended, damn it, so he must pay, the insensitive asshole.

Here's another funny little nugget:

But Lynch says it's no laughing matter. She says it's a hate crime against her religion.

"Look at Louisiana, it's the same thing, what if a black family burned crosses, or nooses it would be the same thing, " says Lynch.

And if the owner still doesn't take the Witch down from its noose by Halloween, Lynch plans to protest outside his home.

She says it's not only a hate crime against her religion, but offensive to the entire community.

Yes, a Halloween decoration that a "witch" is offended by is surely offensive not only to her, but to the entire community. I bet people drive by his house all the time shaking their heads, thinking, "That is so cruel to the witches of Chicopee." And I especially love how she equates a Halloween decoration to real hate crimes! Yes, a Halloween decoration of a hanging witch, that you can probably buy for less than $20 at any Wal-Mart in the country, is the same thing as the KKK burning crosses into a black family's yard.

There is just too much hate in this country, people! This woman is offended, and her feelings are hurt, so we need to all bend over backwards to make sure she is appeased!

Telling her to grow up and get over herself is, of course, not an option. Not at all.

Now, let me point something out. Let's pretend this is a different scenario. Let's say it's April, Lynch has just moved into the neighborhood and introduces herself to her neighbor. She tells said neighbor that she has been practicing witchcraft since she was a child. Neighbor gets angry and the next day, Lynch sees a hanging witch in her front yard.

That I could understand. But come on... it's a freaking Halloween decoration! She's going to protest in this guy's yard over a Halloween decoration?! And of course, we all have to agree with her. If anyone, ever, is offended then there must be repercussions for us insensitive jerks who don't care.

By the way, this is the decoration that Lynch is hyperventilating over:

It's so true to life, no wonder she's offended!

All sarcasm aside -- how long are we going to tolerate the "I'm offended, therefore I am" crowd? How long before we're only allowed to say or do certain things so that no one will be "offended"? I mean, take Lynch. How long before only certain Halloween decorations are approved for our use, all in the name of making sure that she doesn't get her pwecious wittle feewings hurt? The rights of her neighbor mean absolutely nothing to her.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Ann Coulter is coming under fire from liberals everywhere for -- gasp!! -- openly explaining what it is that Christians believe. Right Wing News has the transcript. i'm not going to post the beginning, because its mostly blustering back and forth between the two, but by all means go and read the entire thing, too. Here is what I think best sums up the point Ann was trying to make:

"From the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch:

DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said -- your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said -- don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic --

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK --

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."

Now, like John Hawkins, I'm a little mystified about the whole "following all the laws" part of the discussion. But the basic point is accurate. Christianity is basically an add-on to Judaism, to put it simply.

What the controversy here is over, I have no idea. I'm guessing its simply because Ann Coulter spoke openly to a liberal media hack about her belief in Christianity, a religion constantly coming under attack in this country. Therefore, people must be "offended" because anything that Ann Coulter says must be offensive to someone!

So, once again Ann Coulter has opened her giant, hate spouting mouth on national television. You can find the info here:

http://politicalticker.blog...

In short she has said that all Jewish people should be "perfected" to Christianity. Not ok.

We'll give you $1000 if you send us a video of you pelting Ann Coulter with bagels. You've got 1 week. Get moving people.

Sign up here (http://www.bragster.com/signup) and click disagree in order to join the bet. To win the prize you need to be over 18 and have to post your video in the comment section below.

And we're not paying you to do it, we're paying for the video. It's not our responsibility if you get arrested, sued, stalked by right-wing fanatics or if Coulter lights you on fire.

There's a couple things about this that I find mildly amusing.

First, throw bagels?! Wow. That's pretty lame. I think this guy might be a few McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.

Second, and really the better point, isn't it interesting how liberals tend to react when conservatives say something they don't like? There are cases all across the country of liberals burning conservative newspapers, unplugging microphones, causing near riots to try to stop a conservative speaker, and (most notably in Ann Coulter's case, although it has also happened to David Horowitz and William Kristol), throwing pies. There are a few conservatives who debase themselves to this level, but by and large, its liberals becoming unhinged -- trying to keep conservatives from making a point, or insulting said conservative and their values, because they then never have to argue it.

I guess intelligent, reasonable debate is not an option for this guy, and many liberals. Rather than respond to what he disagreed about Ann Coulter's statements, he just insults her and asks people to throw bagels at her.

Oh, but he isn't paying anyone to actually throw bagels at her -- just to have video of it, in case there's some person who happened to have thrown bagels at her a few years ago and got it on tape, yet it somehow escaped the attention of the media or Coulter herself.

They worry the colorful round treats could be poisoned by an enterprising terrorist who sees them as bait for unsuspecting targets -- young kids.

So, with the approval of the mayor and the skepticism of the police chief in this central Morris County town of 18,000, the three aldermen are in the middle of a nine-month inspection of Dover's coin-operated gumball and candy machines. Thus far, they have surveyed 103 local businesses about their machines.

Led by Alderman Frank Poolas, who envisioned the project and enlisted the aid of fellow Aldermen Jack Delaney and Michael Picciallo, the trio began their investigation six months ago and plan to report their results to Mayor James Dodd Jan. 1.

Already they say they've discovered more than 100 unlicensed coin-operated machines in town -- many filled with gumballs, jawbreakers and other candies they call perfect for potential terrorists.

However, Police Chief Harold "Butch" Valentine said the police department has no reason to believe terrorists are even contemplating contaminating candy.

"We've never received any information to the contrary. The gumballs are safe," he said.

The odds are remote that candy machines would be targeted by terrorists, he added. "You'd probably win the lottery first," Valentine said.

Thomas Zellman, director of the Morris County Department of Law and Public Safety, agreed that gumball machines are "certainly not" a threat to homeland security.

While sticky local issues such as overcrowded housing, taxi ordinances and redevelopment projects have dominated past elections in Dover, Poolas called gumball machine inspections a "high priority."

So let's see... there have been no suspicious looking gumball machines, no complaints of machines seeming to have been tampered with, yet these asshats see them as as a target for terrorism?!

Forget ferries and 747s. Imagine the havoc and terror Al Qaeda could wreak if they got a hold of... gumball machines!!!!

Therefore, Poolas thinks that we must make sure that each and every single gumball machine is licensed. And it isn't about squeezing out a few extra tax dollars, no sirree -- this is for the children.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

For those wondering how it is screeching apocalyptic rhetoric on global warming without a stitch of legitimate scientific research helps lead to world peace, here's the money quote:

Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Excuse me while I go throw up all over my new DVD of An Inconvenient Truth.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

There was a lot of buzz going around that Al Gore might be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize:

The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize could go to a climate campaigner such as ex-U.S. Vice-President Al Gore or Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, reinforcing a view that global warming is a threat to world security, experts say.

The winner of the $1.5 million prize, perhaps the world's top accolade, will be announced in Oslo on October 12 from a field of 181 candidates. The prize can be split up to three ways.

"There are reasonably good chances that the peace prize will be awarded to someone working to stop the dramatic climate problems the world is facing," said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister.

Brende and another Norwegian parliamentarian nominated Gore for his Oscar-winning movie about climate change "An Inconvenient Truth" and Watt-Cloutier, who has highlighted the plight of indigenous cultures facing a quickening Arctic thaw.

The Goracle was supposed to appear this week in a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer. But Babs sent out an e-mail saying that the Goracle wouldn't be able to make it because of some kind of environmental "mission". Al Gore: The Indiana Jones of the Climate Change Movement!

I just got a call from Vice President Al Gore. He told me that he needs to travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission that could result in a major breakthrough in the fight against global warming.

Unfortunately, this means that we must postpone our Thursday, October 11th event with him until Friday, November 9th. I wanted to be sure to e-mail you tonight in case you were planning on attending.

While I am really disappointed that we won't see Al Gore until next month, I am thrilled that he is continuing to provide critical leadership to address one of the most pressing issues of our time. You should know that only the most urgent global warming mission has called him out of the country.

I look forward to seeing you on November 9th so we can all hear first-hand about Al Gore's latest exciting initiatives. We will be back in touch in the coming days with more details about the rescheduled event.

Thank you so much for your continued friendship and support!

Barbara Boxer

A lot of eyebrows were raised, because this week is when the Nobel Peace Prize recipient will be announced. Is the Goracle going to win?

That cancellation coupled with the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize, which Gore is rumored to be nominated for, is set to be announced tomorrow in Oslo, Norway created huge buzz among the political class. If Gore won the peace prize, the argument goes, it would provide him with a huge platform from which to enter the presidential race.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider threw cold water on the rampant speculation, however, in an email exchange with The Fix earlier today.

"The events in California were postponed because of a request to participate in senior level meetings on the climate crisis in Asia," Kreider said. "However, early Thursday morning these meetings were postponed." As a result, Gore will resume his planned trip in California today and tomorrow will be a "normal long business day" according to Kreider. On Saturday, Gore is set to return to his home in Nashville.

As for the draft efforts, Kreider said that "we truly appreciate all the enthusiasm out there for the former vice president, but he does not have any intention to run for President."

You know, I never thought about a Nobel Peace Prize win catapaulting Al Gore back into the presidential race, a truly creepy thought. It's like Halloween or something -- you know, how Michael Myers never really dies?

Even with the statement from the Goracle's spokesperson, he could still win. I can just imagine the statement from the committee now, something probably as vapid and inane as the statement they made for Jimmy Carter back in 2002:

"(The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize) should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current (U.S.) administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States." -- Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge on giving Jimmy Carter the Nobel Peace Prize

So, I thought I'd have a little fun and see if I could guess what kind of statement we might get for why the Goracle would win the Nobel Prize.

"Thanks to Al Gore, polar bears will no longer be drowning, therefore free to continue to kill and maim any humans that come into contact with them, therefore contributing to world peace, as humankind is an inherently violent and unpeaceful race."

What would your statement for why the Goracle won the Nobel Peace Prize be?

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Yesterday, Rachel Lucas wrote a great post called Girl Power about her observations of college students at a bar. She came away with three key points (caution for a teeny-tiny bit of language):

(1) It can be confidently asserted that it is, in fact, considered “stylish” and “hot” for young women to openly flaunt their doughy, protruding midsection regions and to dance like drunken strippers. Thank you, Britney and Paris. It seems the jellyroll exposure is necessary in order to display the tramp stamp lower-back tattoo that every. single. one. of. them. has.

(2) These same young women appear to have so thoroughly emasculated the males of their generation that there is now one AND ONLY ONE acceptable outfit for young men: horizontal-striped polo shirt with collar popped up, cargo shorts that hit midcalf ever-so-effeminately, and flip-flops or, alternatively, leather slip-on loafers. Hair must be moussed and gelled into either a giant spiky mess or a faux-hawk. Approximately 80% of the males sport multiple tattoos on arms and lower legs, clearly in a bid to simply keep up with the tattoo ratio the girls have achieved.

(3) Young females are every bit as, or more, disgusting, revolting, and downright nasty as their male counterparts. My sole foray into the “ladies” room (”ladies” - hehe - that’s a good one) afforded me the opportunity to breathe in the pungent odor of vomit; to hear one girl telling her cohorts, “I don’t want to go home OR puke! I want my drink back! Fuck off!” and another girl shouting into her cell phone, “She can eat shit! Gawd, what a whore!”; and to practice my cat-like tiptoeing skills as I navigated the floor which was littered with an almost solid layer of wet toilet paper and the shards from what were at least three broken glasses.

Ah, noble womanhood. We should definitely be running the world, as it is more clear now than ever that we have our shit together.

I will say that the fashion sense in Florida is [alarmingly] similar and different at the same time. A lot of Florida guys, for example, like to go for surfer chic instead of preppy chic. This means they wear ripped up cargo pants or board shorts, a t-shirt with one of the top three surfer brands (Billabong, Quicksilver, or Rip Curl), and flip flops, always. They top it off with this weird, messy hairdo that I can't really describe. It's long-ish, shaggy, and stylishly swept over their forehead and into their eyes, so that they can constantly be doing the girly hair flip.

She pretty much hit the female fashion sense on the head, though. I don't go to bars or clubs much anymore, and when I do, there are hordes of these girls running around wearing next to nothing, showing off the pre-requisite belly button piercing most of them got when they were sixteen and yes, the tramp stamp.

Now, the tramp stamp I can't really condemn. I have two tattoos, one of which is on my lower back. In my own defense, it has a very personal meaning to it, and I didn't just slap a butterfly, a dolphin, a sun and/or a moon, or some kind of weird tribal there just for the sake of having a tattoo that I thought was "sexy". Therefore, I don't classify mine as a tramp stamp. ;) I put it on my lower back because then it wouldn't be seen by the entire world -- it's for me and no one else. It's only seen when I want it to be seen.

But in any case, girls seem to lately pride themselves on being as "sexy", "wild", and "crazy" as they can be. They go to bars, cheering with their girlfriends about how they are going to get so f*cked up!, proceed to get drunk, and will do just about anything for a little attention. Dance like a stripper on top of a bar? No problem. Flash her little boobies for a free beer? Awesome. Make out with her best friend to get all the guys in the bar in a circle around them cheering? Great, now they know they're getting laid tonight.

It's like girls are in an unofficial race to keep up with the boys, to prove that they aren't lightweights and can outdrink the guys, can sleep around just as much as guys can, can be just as loud, rude, obnoxious, and disgusting as guys can. It's cool to talk in this breathy, ditzy little voice, to giggle at everything a guy says, and basically embody the blonde idiot stereotype as best you can. Strangely enough, slapping has come back, I guess. It's "cute" for a girl to do the little girly slap whenever a guy says something funny. "Oh my God, shut up!"

These little girly girls will act all tough if they see some girl they don't like, too, one of my favorite acts. They'll spot them across the bar and talk all tough to their friends about how, "If that bitch says even one word to me I'm going to kick her ass!" She'll then spend the rest of the night hoping that bitch will come over and say one word to her so that she can then prove what a tough bitch she is. They'll get in each others faces, talk a lot of trash, and then get into some kind of catfight before they're kicked out of the bar. The entire time, drunken boys will be cheering and no one will be trying to break the two girls up.

And feminists wonder why guys are so amazed and enthralled when they somehow meet a classy, intelligent, together young woman (I say "young" because most of these girls will grow out of this phase, but meeting a young twenty-something girl who doesn't act like a drunken skank is more unusual than it is common).

I hate those girls. And if you go out to a bar or a club, they're everywhere.

Thankfully, not all twenty-something girls are like that (hello!). The ones that aren't are the ones who don't feel the need to go to a bar and get plastered, and therefore, you won't see them if you go looking at a bar for them. The old adage that you'll never meet someone worth dating and/or marrying at a bar or a club is still true. It's just too bad that classy, intelligent, together, attractive young women are more of a minority than a majority.

At any rate, these girls will go one of either two ways. They'll grow out of it and be mortified at the way they once acted, and will go on to lead normal, healthy lives, probably keeping their daughters in a semi-prison to try to prevent them from acting the way that they did. OR, they'll grow out of it in the sense that they stop going to bars every weekend but look back fondly on those memories, take their daughters to get matching tramp stamps in an effort to still be "cool", and will probably never settle down with a good man.

And I also agree with another point of Rachel's -- the thanks can be put squarely onto the shoulders of Britney and Paris, for glorifying skankified stripper chic. Look at me, I dress like a whore, I'm so cool! Oh my gawsh, I made a sex tape, I'm so famous! Check it out, I party every single night!

I just hope that my [future] daughter's generation does not repeat these same mistakes. I hope they grow up knowing how ridiculous it is to be "liberated" enough to act this way, and are able to show more restraint than these girls do. We don't need a second generation of these Barbie Doll idiots.

And while we're on the subject of Ron Paul, I'd like to point you over to Right Wing News, where John Hawkins is explaining why people don't like Ron Paul (I'm not going to post the entire thing, just my favorite little nuggets):

In an effort to be polite, I am not going to be snarky about it, but I should forewarn Paul's fans and, for that matter, any "Big L" Libertarians who may be reading, that they are probably not going to like what they read. I'm not trying to be insulting, but without a certain amount of bluntness, it's impossible to get some of these points across.

First of all, a lot of Republicans are strongly pro-war and the fact that Ron Paul is not only anti-war, but has adopted some of the more obnoxious and inflammatory rhetoric of the Left about the war is extremely grating. According to Paul, Iraq is a war for oil and empire, engineered by neocons, and in Paul's book, we deserved to be attacked on 9/11.

When you aim that sort of rhetoric at people who strongly support the war and feel that it's justified, moral, and in America's best interests, it's guaranteed to generate a huge wave of hostility. Additionally, Paul's thoughtless, "we must leave immediately, regardless of the consequences," position on Iraq comes across as poorly thought out. Even if you thought that the war was a bad idea and opposed it from day one, the idea that we can simply extricate ourselves from Iraq immediately because it's unpleasant, with no consequences, is the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from a 16 year old at an anti-war rally, not something you expect from a candidate for President. Even Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, all of whom have spent months trying to convince their base that they're the most anti-war of all the top tier candidates, are saying we may be in Iraq for years to come.

...

Going beyond that, Ron Paul's support for the North American Union conspiracy and his winks and nods to the 9/11 truther crowd appall many conservatives. After spending much of the last six years ripping on liberals for tolerating wild eyed conspiracy theorists, it's embarrassing to many conservatives to have someone on our side, running for President, who's encouraging people on the Right to behave in the same fashion.

This leads us to the last big problem that Ron Paul has: despite the fact that Ron Paul is polling at somewhere between 2%-4% nationally, he has, for whatever reason, more obnoxious supporters backing him than all the other candidates combined. If you write a column or a post knocking John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, you'll certainly have some people disagreeing with you, some of them strongly. If you knock Ron Paul, you'll often have hordes of social misfits making obnoxious comments, spamming your polls, touting conspiracy theories, insulting conservatives in general, and doing everything possible to make nuisances of themselves.

I'm not sure there's much I can add to what John wrote. As usual, he pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Frankly, I've always just found Ron Paul annoying. I mean, his positions are annoying enough, but by God, what is with the Ron Paul supporters? They reacted so badly to a post I wrote about Ron Paul in Jacksonville, that I had to delete comments and threaten to enable commenting restrictions. It's apalling, embarassing, and you know what? I'll say it again, annoying that we've got a truther nutjob running for President as a Republican. It's annoying to see Ron Paul wanting to get rid of the CIA and the Patriot Act. His conspiracy theories are annoying. And the "we must leave Iraq NOW, no matter the consequences!" viewpoint is annoying and potentially dangerous. He fits in better at DailyKos than he does with conservatives.

I say he's annoying over and over again because honestly, that's what he is. He's annoying. He's not a viable candidate (let's be honest, folks, he ain't goin' nowhere), he's just this guy hanging around the election spouting out crazy conspiracy theories and rhetoric. I mean, he has his positives (George Bush could take some lessons from Ron Paul on spending, that's for sure), but Ron Paul has so many negatives that it makes it difficult for people who aren't diehard Ron Paul supporters to find the positives in there, which will make it more than a little difficult for him to gain any new supporters.

When I think of Ron Paul, the image I get is of an annoying little housefly buzzing around your head. You know he's not going to sting you or anything, but the little fly is just bugging the crap out of you. You swat at it and swat at it, but it just won't go away. I think of Ron Paul and think of him as this little annoying housefly buzzing around the race for the candidacy that most people wish would just go away.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the uproar from the Ron Paul supporters I'll probably get from this post. Go right on ahead -- bring on the spammers. I'm still giggling at that picture.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

For those unfamiliar, Hulk Hogan has a reality TV show on VH1 called Hogan Knows Best, making his wife and two children D-list stars right along with him. Brooke, his daughter, has tried to make a singing career out of wearing trailer-trashtastic get ups and doing the breathy Britney Spears voice. Nick, on the other hand, has decided that he wants to be the next Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton.

He's been caught driving recklessly multiple times, and even bragged about it to Rides Magazine:

“In my silver Viper, I was driving from Miami to Tampa. I got pulled over going 107 [mph] and the guy let me off. He’s like, “Hey, I know who you are, just keep going, ya know.” Dude, I got back on the road and two minutes later I get pulled over going 113 [mph]. Another highway patrol from the same county said, “I just heard on the radio that my buddy pulled you over and let you go. I’ma let you go this time. It’s your second warning. You get pulled over again, you’re probably going to go to jail.” Three minutes later, [I was] doing 123 [mph] in a 50 [mph zone]. The guy is like, “Hey, I just heard you got pulled over twice in the last 10 minutes. I got to write you a ticket.”

However, this most recent reckless driving adventure may be leading to the death of his passenger, a Marine who is not recovering.

He was going around 80 in a construction zone in his Toyota Supra, with construction workers present, and apparently was racing a silver Viper when the crash occured. Neither Nick nor his passenger, the Marine in critical condition, were wearing seatbelts.

A Sept. 19 report filed by registered nurse Joanne Jones, who was hired by the court to examine John Graziano to determine if he is incapacitated, said he was on total life support. The report said that Graziano was comatose and that he may have had a seizure.

Jones' report said Graziano responds to a pinch and has a gag reflex but does not otherwise respond to touch or sound. His pupils are fixed, meaning they don't respond to light.

Coleen Booker, a registered nurse with 14 years of emergency room experience at Shands Hospital at the University of Florida in Gainesville, said in an interview that it is not encouraging that he is on life support and his pupils are fixed.

"But the signs that he has a gag reflex and does respond to pain means he's not brain dead," said Booker, who is not involved with Graziano's treatment.

In her report, Jones detailed the injuries Graziano sustained during the wreck. He broke his skull at the base, had part of his skull cut out, experienced brain swelling and had cuts to the scalp. Bone was pushed in and broken in many pieces. He had abnormal collections of blood under the front side of the skull.

In an addendum, Jones included information given to her by Graziano's doctor, H. Bushnell Clarke. He told her that at best, Graziano will "open his eyes on and off."

"At this present time, he states his prognosis remains guarded," Jones wrote in her Sept. 26 addendum. "He states that this young man most likely will spend the remainder of his life in a nursing home."

She said Graziano should be re evaluated in six months to see if his condition improves.

Here is Graziano and his mother before the crash:

Police are still investigating the crash to determine whether or not Nick Hogan can be held criminally responsible.

Folks, I try not to do a lot of PSAs. But use this as an example of what can happen when you drive like an idiot over and over and over again. Sadly, with Nick Hogan's driving background, it was only inevitable that something like this was bound to happen, and it's a sad and cruel twist of fate that an innocent passenger will be the one to pay the price for Hogan's stupidity.

Use common sense when you're behind the wheel. Don't do double the speed limit or worse. Wear a seatbelt. And for God's sake, don't drink and drive either.

And in the meantime, please keep the Grazianos in your thoughts and prayers. They could use them right now.

Monday, October 8, 2007

So everyone already knows that the Clintons have absolutely no shame whatsoever and will do just about anything to get -- and keep -- power. I guess I'm not really that surprised to hear that the Burgler is back -- Sandy Berger, that is.

Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post.

On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.

Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.

“Berger panicked because he realized he was caught,” said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. “Berger lied.”

Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an “honest mistake” by “inadvertently” taking the documents, which he blamed on his own “sloppiness.” Bill Clinton vouched for the explanation for Berger, who served as his national security adviser.

The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.”

At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years.

Of course the campaign declined to comment. There's no feasible way to defend this. There's no way possible to put a good spin on this, so the best thing for them to do is to keep quiet, unless and until the shit really hits the fan.

And here's a fun little nugget of information: The Burgler was only stripped of his security clearance for three years. So in September of 2008, he can get it right back, just in time for the presidential election. So presumably, if we get yet another Clinton White House, we can also have The Burgler in the White House again, too.

What's really sad is how unbelievably blatant the Clintons are. They have more unmitigated gall than I think I have ever seen in a politician (she doesn't even try to hide this kind of bullshit!), and yet people are still supporting her in droves.

What is it I'm missing here that makes people want to support her? What is there to like? What positions does she hold that people want? I just don't get it. I honestly don't understand why it is that anyone would want her as our President, unless they are out of their minds or are actively trying to bring about the ruin of the United States of America.

Wants to socialize all industry? Check. More Marxist than Marx himself? Check. Successful husband with coattails to ride to power? Check. Hiring criminals who put national security at risk? Check.

War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.-- John Stuart Mill

Feel free to e-mail me at cassyblog@hotmail.com about anything you'd like; you can also add me on MySpace or Facebook. I welcome all questions and comments; criticism and praise. However, for anyone planning to send hate-mail: keep in mind that anything you send me may end up getting published. Thanks for reading, and I look forward to hearing from you!